Which statement describes a potential negative impact of infrastructure spending?

• A. Money spent on one area can be spent on other areas too.
• B. Only specific areas benefit, so money spent on one area can't be spent on another.
• C. It always results in national economic growth.
• D. It has no impact on any business.

Answer: (B)

The main idea being tested is that public money is limited, so allocating funds to one infrastructure project creates an opportunity cost—the trade-off of not being able to fund other projects with the same money. This is a potential negative because focusing on one area means other areas may receive less or none, which can slow progress in those areas or delay investments that businesses need elsewhere. For example, funds aimed at building a new highway could mean less money available for upgrading utilities, schools, or digital infrastructure that also support business growth. This highlights how benefits from infrastructure spending can be uneven and how limited resources force tough choices.

The other statements don’t capture this downside. One suggests that money can always be spent elsewhere, which ignores the finite budget and the trade-offs. The idea that spending always guarantees growth or that it has no business impact are both incorrect and oversimplified.